The IESG has listened to the discussion and has reconsidered. We have posted an Internet draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iesg-nomcom-eligibility-2020/ Murray will be the shepherding AD, and will request a four-week last call later today, to end on 30 April, the deadline we had set for comments. The following week (7 May) will have an IESG telechat, and we would expect to have the document on that telechat agenda for approval. The substantive bit in the document is as I described in the message below. Barry, for the IESG On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 3:37 PM Barry Leiba <barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > While we are sorting this out, and whether we publish an Internet > draft or not, I would like to know this: > > As I (Barry, not the IESG as a whole) currently read the rough > consensus, considering what people have said the reasons you all have > given, and the discussion of those reasons, I see things falling > toward option 1. Specifically, looking at RFC 8713, Section 4.14, FOR > THIS NOMCOM CYCLE ONLY and SETTING NO PRECEDENT, I would replace the > first two paragraphs this way: > > Members of the IETF community must have attended at least three of > the last five in-person IETF meetings in order to volunteer. > > The five meetings are the five most recent in-person meetings that > ended prior to the date on which the solicitation for NomCom > volunteers was submitted for distribution to the IETF community. > For the 2020-2021 Nominating Committee those five meetings are > IETFs 102, 103, 104, 105, and 106. > > The question I will ask is this: Is there anyone who *can't live with > that outcome*? > > That question is not asking what you *prefer*; I've read all of those, > and I am still collecting that input further. But for the purpose of > this question, does anyone think that outcome is so bad that you can't > accept it? If you can live with it, there's no need to respond. Just > let me know if you can't. > > Barry >
